Translational...too boring?

[echod]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I was at another student's seminar where she talked about her project involving translational research. I was struck by the project's lack of creativity and the amount of clerical work involved. She was essentially trying to extend preclinical findings in mouse to humans where she is testing whether a metabolite would be a good indicator of future lung cancer risk in cigarette smokers. To do that, she is going through patient charts to correlate lung cancer in later life with urine samples collected decades earlier. This project seems like something that can be contracted out to companies to be done, and a bachelors would be sufficient to do all the work. The clinical applicability is great, but I don't know if I would get involved in a project like this if I was that grad student. Sounds like career suicide to me. What do you think?

 

[Neuronix]

the amount of clerical work involved.

Mine had a ton of that too for basic human and basic animal research.

This project seems like something that can be contracted out to companies to be done, and a bachelors would be sufficient to do all the work.

It's always easy to point a finger at something you've never done and say "omg that looks soooo easy wtf".

Though your point that you don't need a PhD to do that kind of research is a view shared by many. Some MD/PhD programs do allow Epidemiology PhDs, but it is a very small fraction of overall students.

The clinical applicability is great, but I don't know if I would get involved in a project like this if I was that grad student. Sounds like career suicide to me. What do you think?

Career suicide? Why? There's plenty of funding out there for clinical/translational research.

 

[dl2dp2]

a lot of biology research is busy work, even at PhD/postdoc level. While it is true that a basic project may require more prior knowledge, most epidemiology projects are not as simple as it seems on paper. There is quite a bit of statistics that is required, as well as possible issues involved in trial design and patient selection.

However, because of the direct applicability and usefulness of such research, there is frequently significantly MORE funding. Hence it's not "career suicide". Once you get a bit longer in this game you'll realize that the real world priorities are quite different from the basic science perspective. Most clinicians think of such major basic biological breakthroughs, such as p53, SNARE/SNAP as extremely boring. Most physicians don't want to think about V(D)J recombination after step I. What appears to be boring to you may not be boring to others.

I think it's actually more of a career suicide if you don't think about potential clinical applications of your project, because at the end of the day you'll have to justify to everyone, ever step of the way, why your research should be funded, as opposed to someone else's equally fascinating story. While this guy and his bachelor level non-work that you just love to poo-poo on gets its million because all he has to say is, hey, lung cancer, millions die from it man. What do you have to show for it?

 

[RxnMan]

...I was struck by the project's lack of creativity and the amount of clerical work involved...

In clinical or translational research, you are limited to very different set of methodologies, minimally invasive techniques, or chart reviews to get your numbers. There are huge issues of ethics and feasability that are intrinsic to any research dealing with humans that basic scientists never encounter. You never have to consent a plate of cells. Even when you use rats, you can sac large numbers to find results. That's just not possible in humans.

Besides, the hallmark of a knowledgable scientist is that they are able to reduce complex concepts down to something even a child can understand.

...This project seems like something that can be contracted out to companies to be done, and a bachelors would be sufficient to do all the work...

Possibly. Lord knows all of the PCR's and Western's I've done could be executed by a ugrad student (like I was at the time). But everyone knows that the skull sweat of research is in the planning of experiments, not the grunt work of data collection.

...The clinical applicability is great, but I don't know if I would get involved in a project like this if I was that grad student. Sounds like career suicide to me. What do you think?

The fact that it has immediate clinical applicability is what will make her work important to 90% of the MDs out there. The MDs will understand it, see the uses of it, and they will have a patient that can benefit from it. There is funding out there (see the NIH roadmap), and on the residency end of things, I've had more PDs tell me that they like seeing clincal and translational research, instead of the analysis of "some protein."

As sluox elequently ended, you always need to think of the bottom line. You need a way to sell it in two sentences or less. Hers is "we have a non-invasive way of detecting the most common cancer out there."

What's your's?

 

[strangeglove]

Lord knows all of the PCR's and Western's I've done could be executed by a ugrad student (like I was at the time).

I wouldn't be surprised if a robot will do these things in the next 10 years. There are many people who think of these approaches as quite boring for this reason.

 

[echod]

In clinical or translational research, you are limited to very different set of methodologies, minimally invasive techniques, or chart reviews to get your numbers. There are huge issues of ethics and feasability that are intrinsic to any research dealing with humans that basic scientists never encounter. You never have to consent a plate of cells. Even when you use rats, you can sac large numbers to find results. That's just not possible in humans.

Besides, the hallmark of a knowledgable scientist is that they are able to reduce complex concepts down to something even a child can understand.

Possibly. Lord knows all of the PCR's and Western's I've done could be executed by a ugrad student (like I was at the time). But everyone knows that the skull sweat of research is in the planning of experiments, not the grunt work of data collection.

The fact that it has immediate clinical applicability is what will make her work important to 90% of the MDs out there. The MDs will understand it, see the uses of it, and they will have a patient that can benefit from it. There is funding out there (see the NIH roadmap), and on the residency end of things, I've had more PDs tell me that they like seeing clincal and translational research, instead of the analysis of "some protein."

As sluox elequently ended, you always need to think of the bottom line. You need a way to sell it in two sentences or less. Hers is "we have a non-invasive way of detecting the most common cancer out there."

What's your's?

I have no doubt that this project is interesting and important, but my reservation is whether this is good thesis material. This project is probably much more interesting to the PI than her, and the PI has a lot to gain if this project works out. My concern with the project is that it is too defined from the very beginning...almost like a contract. There is not enough space for creativity and diversions. I don't know if the PI has done the student a service when she was put on this project. Maybe a tech would be more suitable.

 

[MadMnkey]

To me translational research is a much broader area than what's been described. I've been working at the NIH for the past year and I've seen a lot of different types of research, but they were all classified under the "translational" title.

In the lab that I'm in now, my PI, who's actually one of the first MSTP grads from Hopkins, does translational research in brittle bone disease. It's a lot of basic science type of work, i.e. creating mouse models, looking at collagen folding, etc, but all the human cells we use comes from her clinical patients and we also screen all the patients ourselves to identify their mutations.

Then all of the data that is generated is used to identify potential therapeutics and examine the effects of drugs that would be used on the patients. It's not really as clinical as what's been mentioned, but to me this is what I see as translational research - hardcore basic science that can be used to directly help patients. So personally, I find translational research a lot more interesting than either clinical research or pure basic science research because you are sort of able to get the best of both arenas. 🙂

 

[Vader]

To me translational research is a much broader area than what's been described. I've been working at the NIH for the past year and I've seen a lot of different types of research, but they were all classified under the "translational" title.

In the lab that I'm in now, my PI, who's actually one of the first MSTP grads from Hopkins, does translational research in brittle bone disease. It's a lot of basic science type of work, i.e. creating mouse models, looking at collagen folding, etc, but all the human cells we use comes from her clinical patients and we also screen all the patients ourselves to identify their mutations.

Then all of the data that is generated is used to identify potential therapeutics and examine the effects of drugs that would be used on the patients. It's not really as clinical as what's been mentioned, but to me this is what I see as translational research - hardcore basic science that can be used to directly help patients. So personally, I find translational research a lot more interesting than either clinical research or pure basic science research because you are sort of able to get the best of both arenas. 🙂

I wholeheartedly agree and think you have really captured the essence of what translational research is! 👍

Rather than career suicide, this is really the niche where MD/PhDs can (and I would argued are trained to) excel. In being fluent in the languages of both science and medicine, MD/PhDs are in a unique position to translate basic discoveries into new therapies.

I know it remains controversial, but I would also argue that there is nothing wrong with doing translational work for a PhD thesis, and quite a lot to be gained. There are certainly unique aspects to translational work, as has been mentioned by previous posters. I would think it valuable to have early experience dealing with the issues particular to translational work (in additional to basic work), as part of training, rather than having to learn new methodology/approaches during a "post-doc" post-residency.

 

[Tradewind]

The project has potential, but I agree I'd want other projects wrapped in that PhD that span more than the clinical correlation between a metabolite and outcome (lung cancer).

Will you get to work with the metabolite, lung tissue or look at any imaging studies?

Alternatively, you could become very well versed in epidemiology, which is fine, too, like others have said. But then that should be the goal - if you're going to stick in that part of the translational process.

 

[Neuronix]

This project is probably much more interesting to the PI than her,

Then that would be her fault for choosing that project or that lab!

and the PI has a lot to gain if this project works out.

Uh... Isn't that how this whole system works?

My concern with the project is that it is too defined from the very beginning...almost like a contract. There is not enough space for creativity and diversions.

That's just the reality for studies on humans. There's a lot of planning involved and you can't just change midstream or quickly branch off in another direction. It's just something you have to accept if you do this sort of research.

 

[RxnMan]

I have no doubt that this project is interesting and important, but my reservation is whether this is good thesis material...

This is a completely different issue than the one you stated in your original post. Words like "boring," "career suicide," and "Maybe a tech would be more suitable" are inflammatory and reek of arrogance.

...My concern with the project is that it is too defined from the very beginning...almost like a contract...There is not enough space for creativity and diversions...

1) You'd be surprised at how much info is contained in a pt record. There may very well be room enough for several alternative hypotheses as she collects the data.
2) Every grad student should strive to have their projects so well defined. If they can, they should have their committment on paper. I have met too many grad students who have been in their MSs for 3+ years, or PhDs 5-7 years, doing work far beyond their thesis, or worse - not being allowed to start their thesis - because their PI didn't think they had "done enough" yet.

Nebulous project = never-ending project

...This project is probably much more interesting to the PI than her, and the PI has a lot to gain if this project works out...I don't know if the PI has done the student a service when she was put on this project...

In my graduate experience, PI's generally don't do students a service, they use students to get projects done. PI's only let their students graduate when they can no longer justify the student's imprisonment.

 

[RxnMan]

To me translational research is a much broader area than what's been described...

The type of research work described in this post is exactly the type of work I want to do. Working between pts and cells and animal models and XRD - using that spread of tools and a broad training to attack a problem/disease.

 

[dl2dp2]

The project has potential, but I agree I'd want other projects wrapped in that PhD that span more than the clinical correlation between a metabolite and outcome (lung cancer).

Will you get to work with the metabolite, lung tissue or look at any imaging studies?

Alternatively, you could become very well versed in epidemiology, which is fine, too, like others have said. But then that should be the goal - if you're going to stick in that part of the translational process.

Developing useful biomarker is actually much more complex than you think. For one thing, there are at least 5 different histological subtypes of "lung cancer". Secondly, you need to build a case of what biomarker is useful for what clinical picture, which requires some sophistication is your use of regression models, and sometimes non-parametric models.

Secondly, I'm assuming the end point isn't just lung cancer, but also associated things like mortality, response to chemo, etc. etc., because the point of such marker is to find cancer early so we can treat it. (Remember how PSA failed?) If this is a useful marker at all, it can very conceivably become a multicenter study which eventually result in multiple NJEM-level papers.

Finally, assuming the metabolite suggests some mechanisms of tumoriogenesis, that in itself can be a clue as to why some lung cancers develop, and others don't. Perhaps the metabolite irreversibly activated some BCR-ABL type tyrosine kinase...perhaps it's a new kind of TK that can get a new GLEEVAC....and make someone or a bunch of people's careers

Clearly, no research is "just a contract". If you can't come up with the ideas for your R01s, it's not the fault of the phenomenon...don't blame the toliet when you are constipated.

A useful biomarker is a multi-billion kind of a thing, and many millions are spent in both academia and industry to develop a replacement for, say, PSA. I would NOT trivialize this kind of research at all.

I wouldn't be surprised if a robot will do these things in the next 10 years. There are many people who think of these approaches as quite boring for this reason.

Agreed. But who's going to analyze this data generated by all these robots? Seems like system biology is the direction of the future.

 

[Tradewind]

Developing useful biomarker is actually much more complex than you think.

Sorry - I didn't mean to give the impression that I thought that was not complicated. Being a super star epidemiologist PhD is certainly one way to go.

 

[echod]

This is a completely different issue than the one you stated in your original post. Words like "boring," "career suicide," and "Maybe a tech would be more suitable" are inflammatory and reek of arrogance.

Haha. I'm not an arrogant person, and I'm actually very considerate to others. However, I would say that I'm less than gifted in the realm of interpersonal communications and people skills. You would have fun reading the attending feedbacks that I got from my clerkships.....something needs to change if I want any high passes or honors in the future!

 

[Lukkie]

I wouldn't be surprised if a robot will do these things in the next 10 years. There are many people who think of these approaches as quite boring for this reason.

At last year's (2008) AACR, there was a robot that could perform basic tissue culture.

 

[Neuronix]

At last year's (2008) AACR, there was a robot that could perform basic tissue culture.

As long as grad students are cheaper than robots, grad students will do the work.

In my old lab the grad student spent months running ChIP assays when RT-PCR would have yielded the necessary data much faster. The difference? An RT-PCR machine cost a lot of money.

 

[anemone2]

In my old lab the grad student spent months running ChIP assays when RT-PCR would have yielded the necessary data much faster. The difference? An RT-PCR machine cost a lot of money.

lol. That's awful - why not just use another lab's machine?? We share ours with 2 other labs and occasionally get visitors from different floors.

Out of curiosity, do you remember what question the grad student was trying to answer? Because ChIP and RT-PCR seem to address pretty different things..

 

[NGN47]

In my old lab the grad student spent months running ChIP assays when RT-PCR would have yielded the necessary data much faster. The difference? An RT-PCR machine cost a lot of money.

You can do ChIP using the same thermocycler that you would use for quantitative RT-PCR, but they are different techniques for different questions. !?CoNfUsIoN?!

 

[StIGMA]

Looking at transcriptional processes or small RNA regulation, etc? ChIP>RNA purification>Northerns/RNA cloning/etc. versus ChIP>RT-PCR?

 

[Lukkie]

As long as grad students are cheaper than robots, grad students will do the work.

In my old lab the grad student spent months running ChIP assays when RT-PCR would have yielded the necessary data much faster. The difference? An RT-PCR machine cost a lot of money.

Completely LEGAL SLAVERY I tell ya!

 

[anemone2]

Looking at transcriptional processes or small RNA regulation, etc? ChIP>RNA purification>Northerns/RNA cloning/etc. versus ChIP>RT-PCR?

That makes sense, but you're still doing ChIP assays in both cases; I thought we were talking about doing RT-PCR instead of ChIP.

Anyway, sorry for getting a bit off topic for this thread..

 

[Neuronix]

lol. That's awful - why not just use another lab's machine?? We share ours with 2 other labs and occasionally get visitors from different floors.

It was a small research institute more or less in the middle of nowhere. The PI moved unexpectedly forcing the grad student to move from his family in a large west coast city to nowheresville when the student was about four years into his PhD. This cost him one year and one girlfriend. He absolutely hated it there, which was funny because I did too. But when they'd interview people for post-docs I was kept away so I couldn't say anything negative while he'd BS about how nice it was there.

As for ChIP vs. other techniques, it was a transcriptional regulation project. But I haven't done any of this type of molecular biology work or thought about this particular project in 7 years, so I don't remember the details of why ChIP vs quantitative RT-PCR.

 

[gbwillner]

It was a small research institute more or less in the middle of nowhere. The PI moved unexpectedly forcing the grad student to move from his family in a large west coast city to nowheresville when the student was about four years into his PhD. This cost him one year and one girlfriend. He absolutely hated it there, which was funny because I did too. But when they'd interview people for post-docs I was kept away so I couldn't say anything negative while he'd BS about how nice it was there.

As for ChIP vs. other techniques, it was a transcriptional regulation project. But I haven't done any of this type of molecular biology work or thought about this particular project in 7 years, so I don't remember the details of why ChIP vs quantitative RT-PCR.

If he was a GOOD scientist he would have done BOTH.
/that's what my PI would say